Modern information processing systems allow users to collect and process large amounts of information. As an example, a typical computer system such as a personal computer includes an operating system that executes within the computer system to provide a graphical user interface to users of that computer system. A conventional graphical user interface typically includes a number of information objects such as graphical icons that represent information of relevance or importance to the user. The user accesses data and controls functionality of the computer system by selecting and operating such icons. By way of example, software applications such as word processors, graphical editing tools, web browsers and many others often provide graphical user interfaces that include a number of icons that have visual meaning to the user of the computer system. Typically, a software application renders icons to allow the user to invoke specific functionality or commands of that application and/or to allow the user to organize and access data. Many software applications use icons to represent data or files that the user can access by selecting (e.g., clicking) the icon representing the data. As an example, if a user selects an icon that represents a software application installed within the computer, the computer will begin execution of that application. Other icons on a graphical user interface can represent folders or files maintained by the operating system within a file system.
Many conventional software applications allow a user to develop or collect various portions of information or content for storage and future access. As an example, a word processor or other editing tool allows the user to create and edit documents. As another example, a web browser allows a user to navigate web pages provided by servers on remote computer networks such as the Internet to reference information on a variety of subjects. A conventional computer system allows a user to store information referenced or created by such applications as a set of documents or files that can be retrieved by the user at a later time.
Most conventional operating systems and many software applications also provide a way for a user to arrange a file system of the computer in order to organize documents and files in a manner that makes sense to the user. Computer operating systems typically organize file systems in a hierarchical manner allowing the user to create folders or directories with user-specified names. The user can store files within the folders in a manner that makes sense to that user. A file system is thus one of the most popular ways for users to organize and manage data and information of interest to those users.
Another mechanism that conventional applications and operating systems provide to allow users to organize and manage information of interest to that user is the ability to allow a user to spatially arrange information objects such as graphical icons in a way that makes intuitive sense to the user. As an example, on a conventional “desktop” work area provided by many operating systems, a user can place or position icons representing files, documents, applications, email messages, appointments or the like in any manner and at any position that the user may choose. In particular, such conventional applications allow the user to graphically maneuver the icons into position in relation to one another in a manner that makes sense to that user. Different users often organize icons on their desktop in different ways.
Information availability and accessibility is continuously increasing. The problem is that information commonly exists in different formats, resides in different locations, is dynamically changing, and is used and modified by different people. This makes it difficult for users to effectively monitor, analyze and exchange information.
A lot of content is published through social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumbler and Pinterest. These applications commonly present content as feeds (dynamic and non-modifiable sequences of information). One alternative to feeds are web pages (static and controlled arrangements of information) such as CNN and Amazon. The advantages of feeds over web pages are that they can be operated quickly, simply and inexpensively. New content can easily be added, individual content items can easily be recombined, and content is automatically laid out chronologically. The disadvantages of feeds over web pages are that users cannot change and modify content, and have no control over how content is visualized and organized. The advantages and disadvantages of feeds and web pages often depend on the particular use case. For example, a blog is best presented as a sequence organized by time while a store front benefits from a more customized presentation of product offerings.
A large amount of high-quality content is accessible through web sites. The content on these web sites is often difficult to access and reuse because individual web sites organize and present content differently and because content is stored in different formats. Furthermore, content is often reused illegally and authorship information often (unintentionally) obscured.
Consumers increasingly expect content to be free and a growing amount of content is being distributed illegally. At the same time, revenue derived from the distribution of content (such as advertising) goes mostly to content distributors and curators (e.g. social networking sites such as Facebook and search engines such as Google) rather than content owners. There are few opportunities for individual content owners to independently distribute and monetize their content.
The size of content is decreasing (e.g. a pager versus a book or a music track versus a music album, a news article versus a newspaper) yet there are few technology solutions that support the effective distribution, recombination and monetization of smaller content pieces.
People often do not have the skills and time to present content in a professional and impressive manner. Thus, tools that offer fewer options to publish content (such as most social networking sites) often appear less intimidating, more democratic and content focused. These tools provide users with an excuse for not spending a lot of time on the presentation of content as they operate within given parameters like everybody else (talented and untalented, rich and poor). Compare the 140 word limitation on Twitter, the predefined picture presentation in Pinterest, and the standardized posts on Facebook walls with the effort to build custom web pages.
The meaning of content is often defined by the context in which it is created or used in (e.g. considering fruits in the context of nutrition values are different from considering fruits in the context of investment opportunities). The distribution of individual content pieces often obscures the context in which the content piece was previously used in. Also, content is often disassociated from the background and expertise of content creators and content users eliminating valuable means for people to help each other understand the various meanings and uses of content.